Thoughtful reasoning? What thoughtfully reasoned excerpts from the decision were quoted? And how thoughtfully reasoned do you suspect Steven's ruling was? The guy is ninety, you know and slurs his speech. Yet your conserva-times chose him to do the deed and I saw very little of what he had to say quoted here.

Wait a minute. You don't think...you think Stevens was part of the majority! BWaaaahaaa haaa! You haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, you pompous windbag! Why don't you come back after at least reading the summary! I wonder if your opinion of Stevens will suddenly, conveniently completely reverse!

Ritmo's response? Something about only "skimming" the case and assuming the conservatives must have "co-opted" the "senile" liberal justice to get their majority. Suddenly, "the specifics of all this" aren't what really matter. You know: When the "specifics" don't feel like good slingable mud, you just don't care about using personal remarks against the justices as a way of saying you didn't like the outcome of a case.

I love the way the liberal's willingness to make a completely un-PC attack on a person, when that person is conservative, glares so painfully when it turns out that the target of the attack isn't actually conservative.

I remember once, a liberal friend of mine was all mad at conservatives over Kelo. Those dastardly conservatives, taking away property rights. Must have been conservatives, see, because conservatives stand for badness and taking away rights.

It is my understanding that PC only applies to those of the non-liberal persuasion. Liberals can say and do anything they want. no matter how racist, anti-Semetic, violent, or distasteful. PC does not apply to them.

From Lithwick on this ruling, "You will doubtless hear today that 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens read aloud from his partial dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission for almost 20 minutes in a slow, halting voice, periodically getting tangled up in thickets of words like "corporation" and "corruption.""

I suspect Lithwick would have been less understanding of a 'halting' performance from any of the conservatives on the court. I'm not sure that Pres. Obama or the Senate is looking forward to one, and possibly two (Ginsburg might be fine and getting healthier, or she might not be) appointments to the court before the next general election.

I think Pres. Obama could use the possibility of a judicial appointment as a way to take care of possible problems he faces in 2012. If he plans on running for President again, then appoint Hillary to the Supreme Court. Seems like she's positioning herself to extricate herself from the current administration and run in the primaries against Obama, so an appointment to the court would take her out of the game, and most likely the Senate would go along with that.

The other possibility is appoint himself. He is "The One", afterall, so why the hell not? He wouldn't be the first to slide from the executive to the judicial branch (though, the first while in office). Appointing himself would certainly be audacious, and given that he really doesn't seem to be having much fun anymore, let Biden deal with the wreckage while Obama becomes the youngest of the current justices.

If he really wants to be ridiculously audacious, he'll argue that he could do both jobs at the same time, and that it wouldn't be a violation of separation of powers.

You gotta realize that many people who don't listen to Conservatives have no problem “quoting” something stupid & attributing it to a conservative.

Or, operating from a foregone conclusion, skim read a report of what a conservative actually said (something like pressing "Ctrl + F to search a term in an article) &, QED, scream "eureka! here's proof that the Conservative's actually a Nazi.

But mistaking Stevens for a conservative? That rates pretty high on the Jaywalking (Leno, of course) “let’s put this on a Video” scale.”

Next, someone'll say that the latest Keith O's rant or one of Chris M.'s was really done by Savage!

Or that one of Mao's sayings was made by Tom Friedman. Oh, wait, a minute....

[Obama]'ll argue that he could do both jobs at the same time, and that it wouldn't be a violation of separation of powers.

We must distinguish between “bourgeois truth,” which is concerned with sterile facts, and “revolutionary truth,” which is concerned with what will promote the revolution. The Obamai understand the importance of revolutionary truth.

I read "the liberal's" to mean the willingness of the liberal referred to. If I say, for instance, that "the fool's comments were accurate" I do not mean that all fools make accurate comments but rather the particular fool I am referring to made an accurate comment. The use of "the" is not intended to fool or obfuscate but rather to specify the fool to whom I refer.

Peter -- It was more than that. My leftist friend assumed that Thomas and Scalia had been in lockstep ready to take away property rights. And, of course, the liberals on the court were defending the rights of individuals against the State.

I love this conservative's use of the article "the" to take an example of a liberal, this liberal here or that liberal there, to take a specific story and offer it up as a generalization about liberalism.

"I would love it if some intelligent and thoughtful liberals came here regularly. So far, no luck."

Ann has not presented her blog in a way that would attract liberals of a serious persuasion. Why would a serious liberal want to jump into the middle of a bunch of unserious conservatives that Ann has cultivated here?

Ann has not presented her blog in a way that would attract liberals of a serious persuasion. Why would a serious liberal want to jump into the middle of a bunch of unserious conservatives that Ann has cultivated here?

Isn't it "the liberal's willingness" exactly equal to "the willingness of liberals"?

Seven, I don't know what you're complaining about, since you make the same point I'm making. Taking a particularly idiotic post from Ritmo and presenting it as representative of a whole class is lame. Cheap. Dishonest. I'm truly disgusted by Althouse right now.

It was amusement that the liberal assumed that Kelo was decided by the conservatives on the courtConservatives couldn't possibly defend poor property owners against big corporations. Olberman's head would explode.

@Beth Sorry, but it's comedy. I recommend laughing at stuff that really is very funny. And the background to this is that I have observed many unPC comments by liberals directed at people who are thought to be conservatives, including many sexist remarks aimed at me, but also, for example, racist comments aimed at Justice Thomas.

What's with this latching onto article use? Isn't it "the liberal's willingness" exactly equal to "the willingness of liberals"?

No, it isn't. It's a slightly formal - maybe slightly archaic way of referring to a speicic person. Such as senators referring to each other as "the distinguished gentleman" or judges referring to "the plaintiff" and "the defendant." This is common in legalistic and formal writing, which, Althouse being a law professor and tangentially discussing a court case, I am certain she was using.

Althouse, thanks for responding. I do laugh at funny stuff. Humor's subjective so we'll continue to disagree about this one.

Wait - Justice Thomas is a liberal mistakenly thought to be a conservative?

I don't disagree that there are liberals who think they claim the PC high ground and overlook their own sexism, racism or whatever isms. I do think taking a stupid comment by a consistently blowhard commenter and saying "hey, here's what liberals do" with it is lame. You could do the same thing daily with illogical or misdirected comments from some of your more blowhard conservative commenters, but you never will.

I regret I must leave - not in a huff, but today's our day for dinner and a visit with the old men. We can't very well send them out before the Death Panel without a little visit first. Even the liberal has a heart.

Meade, that was in reply to enki's "liberals do it too" - Althouse posted as I was writing that so they appear sequentially. Why lame? I just find this post weak, and that response falls flat for me. Ergo, lame.

isn't use of the word "lame" a little, you know... able-ist?

Ha! Good tweak. But surely by now you know I'm un-PC! I'm not the only liberal who dislikes euphemisms and speech codes, am I?

And thanks - I hope there's room here for being "liberally good-humored" and still being able to critique a joke that in my view misfires.

Ralph, I'm old enough to remember when the term "PC" was a self-referential joke liberals used to poke fun at ourselves when we were being too earnest. We also used "PF" for politically fucked in the same vein of humor.

Showing up at the lesbian potluck with a meat dish was PF. And welcome anyway.

In my experience, conservatives missed the whole joke of PC, and maybe that was their intention. But too many others, well-intentioned, missed the joke as well and have taken it entirely too seriously. I rely on good manners and trying not to hurt people's feelings, like my mama taught me. It works for me.

Now, really, we're leaving in 15 minutes and I haven't gotten my act together. It's a beautiful, sunny day and our drive will take us through cane fields and bayous. I'm looking forward to it. Adios for now.

I don't like to have to depend Ritmo all the time but it seems that I always seem to do it.

When you write a lot and you write fast you can occasionaly make a mistake. When you acknowledge it and appolgize you show that you are a man. Unlike many others who post nonsense and when they are called on it simply tell you to "suck my dick."

In my experience, conservatives missed the whole joke of PC, and maybe that was their intention. Oh, it was all a joke? And that whole season of "Dallas" was all Pam's dream?Some people play with their food, some play with their weapons.I rely on good manners and trying not to hurt people's feelings, like my mama taught me.Would that we all did.

Not much to add, but Beth, you're more articulate than I and thanks for speaking up. There's light to be shed on both sides and there are but a few brave souls that'll do that. As for Ritmo, he mispoke, but he owned up to it. He's got a passion - I'll give him that.

Ann has not presented her blog in a way that would attract liberals of a serious persuasion. Why would a serious liberal want to jump into the middle of a bunch of unserious conservatives that Ann has cultivated here?

Unserious? Well, yeah, Coffee guy, that's the point. There's a lot of irreverence here, which is what makes it fun.

Plus, what's a liberal? I am pro gay marriage, pro choice, against affirmative action, against speech restrictions (speech restriction now being a pet liberal cause), pro free trade, against term limits. Am I a liberal? Not by any stretch, but at least I can adopt some "liberal" views.

Speech restriction is the biggest puzzle. How the hell did it become liberal to have campus speech codes and federal restrictions on how one can support a candidate for elective office? Indeed, how did it become liberal to favor greater and greater expansion of the power of government?

Being a liberal these days is in considerable part a fashion statement. When the fashion goes away, much of the liberal agenda wilts under analysis.

And the background to this is that I have observed many unPC comments by liberals directed at people who are thought to be conservatives, including many sexist remarks aimed at me, but also, for example, racist comments aimed at Justice Thomas.

Every once in awhile Malkin publishes a day's worth of hate mail. It's pretty eye-opening - Choc-full of "lbfm" and ping-pong ball references.

Alex, there's that school of thought, but I think the more insidious are the earnest young high SAT types who have no problem with "speech codes" and know refuse any idea that might have some harsh results for some people.

I see that I misread that appolgy post which was from a sock puppet and not Ritmo.

I hate when people pile on no matter who it is.

I just know that Ritmo (formerly Montana Urban Legend) does have a sense of humour unlike a lot of pussies who comment here. I posted a photo of him implying that he enjoyed sex with sheep! He laughed and joined in the ball busting.

----------------FOR 23,600 NEGROES,1,000 MELONS----------------AN EXPERT'S FIGURES ON THE DAILY CONSUMPTION BY THE COLORED POPULATION.----------------The Dark-Skinned Brother's Fondness for the Luscious Fruit Not a Factor in Advancing Prices.

-----

The piece has not only socioeconomic wisdom, but advice on picking the best melon, so y'all go out and read it.

Oh, and Ritmo can jam it up his ass sideways. He has no call on decorum here, or anywhere. Troop, a guy who likes to talk about his sexual prowess as much as he is not to be relied on.

As for you, Coffee Guy, I don't know that you're a troll - probably Monty himself trying out a new name - but if you weren't a newbie here, you'd know that the one thing that makes you subhuman in Ritmo's eyes is to have a Blogger profile that he cannot read. (That means you, son!)

1jpb, he has asked to be nailed like this for a long time, he must want it. And surely you calling for Christian forgiveness for him is hypocritical?

A good many colored folk do not buy their own watermelons. They are waiters in restaurants or cooks in boarding houses, and absorb [!] enough melon in the course of business to keep their hands off those owned by their colored neighbors.

The old Ritmo was a hoot from the time he first started to challenge anyone else who commented using a conservative viewpoint. He would also answer thoughtful questions, even if he talked down to his inferiors he found on Althouse. But about two weeks ago he seemed to lose it as the liberal sky started falling in ClimateGate and the exposure of Obama who was suddenly acting like a liar on every Healthcare statement he was making. Then Ritmo took on Don Rickles personality using the insult mode toward most commenters. That is dull stuff which is only worth being scrolled past. We need the old Ritmo back.

Although, in my opinion, Tedio Brasiliero is a pompous dick with the wrong politics, I do feel a bit sorry for him. I have posted my share of stupidity in the comments, and I am grateful that Ann hasn't picked one of mine out for the purpose of publically flaying me in a post.

Stevens, who is about to turn 90, read a strongly worded dissent in the courtroom today:

[I]t was striking to see him appear to stumble over words as he read it, to mispronounce words like “corruption” and “allegation,” to seem to lose his place in his summary, to often hit the microphone with his hand or his papers.

... [I]t was so different from the John Paul Stevens we’ve come to know.

It's sad when aging shows, just as it's inspiring when an older person is especially vigorous. But no one can go one forever.

Perhaps your writing and the excerpts you selected did not convey what you wanted them to convey.

In light of that, I can only say that this is not an honest or fair attack on me.

If you want to attack me, at least do it fairly. Also, try to quote me in context, if that's not too much to ask. Like here:

"I'm less interested in the specifics of all this, but would look at them if anyone here was."

Emphasis added, you see. Because apparently the point is not understood very well when the proper emphasis is missing.

Try to be fair. If you are threatened by what I said, I apologize. I wouldn't understand why you would feel that way, but I do not seek to post comments just to make people feel bad, and would make as much known if that were the sole outcome. But if you merely think I made a bad argument (initially, as it's hard to see why you wouldn't find the later response to Sofa King appropriate - even if omitted in your post here), do try explain why - and do it with honest quotations. If you wouldn't mind.

It seems to me, Ritmo, that the point is that you jumped to a conclusion based on a assumption, as opposed to careful reading [and following of links] and analysis. This is something you accuse others of fairly regularly--of not doing their homework and just reacting and jumping to conclusions based on assumptions, etc.

Now, I originally commented way, way up in this thread in a light-hearted manner, because I didn't think it was that big of a deal. I refrained from making any further comment (about you; the teasing of Beth is different and unrelated to you) because of your comment at 11:30 a.m. yesterday, which I took as acknowledgment of a mistake. After that, anything further seemed, to me, to be piling on, in which I had no interest.

But now, here you are, acting as if your initial mistake--which anyone can make and which you yourself seemed to acknowledge (what changed, by the way?)--is really someone else's fault and not due to your own sloppiness.

If you want be pissed about the piling on, that's one thing. But if you're going to go back and act is if you weren't a bit of a hypocritical ass to begin with, that's something else again.

I not only jumped to a conclusion (something that a lot of people, including Althouse, do here all the time), but I told the person who clarified my mistake that I appreciated their clarification. In the most polite way I know possible, I'd like to ask: In what sense can that possibly indicate a refusal on my part to admit error?

I appreciate you discussing this with me honestly. And piling on (in the comments) is something I can take. If people want to go that approach, however, I don't see what grounds they have to admonish me for an impolite tone. I'm human. Sometimes my tone misses the mark. Sometimes it's appreciative, sometimes it's shocked, sometimes neutral, and sometimes none of the above. But as a human being, with views that are no less immune to derision than anyone else's views are, yes, I admittedly employ derision when it is used against me in return. If that's not fair, then I really don't know what to say!

But this wasn't about what any commenter said. It's about someone choosing to make a post (and a label) out of this the minute I said I'd be leaving town and would "look at the response late Sunday (the next day). Have a good weekend everyone!"

Now, I think you'd have to be pretty darn cynical to think that I said that (my last comment on the thread) for sarcastic or derisive effect.

But I don't think it takes much cynicism to believe that someone would upload a separate post on that discussion and the character whose particularly inconvenient views contributed to it, for the first time ever, a mere 25 minutes later, as a way of deliberately avoiding an opportunity to address the issue honestly with me and in detail.

The 11:30 comment here is not from me but from a sock puppet who seems to like employing vulgarity as a way to mock me.

I myself, however, am more than capable of issuing my own retractions and am more than willing to admit whatever error on my part would have prompted them.

If such honesty isn't at least somewhat redeeming of the ass that I can admittedly become on other occasions, please let me know. Because if so, I'm going to go back over the Rush Limbaugh thread and honestly figure out how extensive and intense a mea culpa I should have performed. And in reference to a comment of mine that was so over-the-top that I am astounded anyone took it as evidence of my most serious and sober of attempts!

In any event, please let me reiterate, I appreciate you discussing this honestly with me, as I would anyone else. Cruelty or mocking is one thing, but it's really the inaccuracy that, as subjective as my opinion about it is, I believe I'm most bothered about.

However, I do respect your defense of an objection to cruelty or mocking. At least when they're done for merely their own sake.

And before I take heed of my better impulse to shut up, I do wish to quickly clarify two assumptions made about me in this post:

1. I am not, and have never been, a defender of "political correctness".

2. Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke, whose ideas are claimed by both modern conservatives and modern "progressives". It is not a signifier of "liberal" in the over-simplified, right-left political jargon of the contemporary American political spectrum.

That said, I'll shut up and predict that I have good reason to look forward to pretty much anything you have to say. You seem to be a rather calm one in this habitat and I hope you can appreciate my acceptance of the truism that none of us on here have any claim to absolute truth, whether employed for the effect of conveying an inherent moral, personal or intellectual superiority or for any other flawed purpose.

We all suck, Trooper. I think that's the point that several are attempting to impart here. But we don't all suck in equally fun ways!!! Do we??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? And at the same time?!

Anyway, thanks also to Theo Boehm for trying to convey a larger point - and for his stated appreciation of some of my earlier contributions. I'll try to find a way to better accommodate that sensibility. While also accommodating the appreciation for human wackiness so amply demonstrated by the all too humane Trooper.

And TG, I only lost it in the last two weeks?

Now I know we're like the African parable of several blind men thinking that each part of the elephant they touch can best be described by a different element.